|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 15, 2023 18:13:58 GMT
There’s nothing substantially wrong with the article. The accusation of antisemitism against the remnant is absurd. Unfortunately, that kind of rhetoric results from the same “poor catechesis” the article is probably referring to. The problem could also stem from how one interprets what constitutes “proper” catechetical instruction. For example, I’ve met many Catholics who can rattle off various Catholic prayers and tell you all about the feast days and the rubrics of the Mass. Yet, they have very little understanding of Scripture or how to properly interpret it. And no, I’m not claiming this is unique only to attendants of the NO. What I’m saying is that, many Catholics believe that to be a good Catholic they have to prioritize Church rules and guidelines over anything else. Those who make a conscious effort to seek out the TLM, and who keep coming back, probably bring a pretty good understanding of the Faith with them. If it matters that much to them, they're going to be the type of Catholic who either self-educates, or was brought up in the TLM and had the catechetical instruction (most likely at home) all along. Your first-timers, or regular Novus Ordo parishioners who end up going to the TLM one Sunday because it was the only Mass they could get to that day, may indeed have a certain "knowledge gap". We want them there. If they will take some literature (which is usually provided), read it, and come back again, it'll start to jell.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 16, 2023 3:03:13 GMT
It literally points out that Catholic Churches are consolidating or experiencing worse, and "there remains a segment", etc. As for the second point, look for "catechesis" in the article (use CTRL-F).
For some the TLM will seem foreign or even distant. This is the result of the poisoned fruit of poor catechesis that has manifested itself to a cancer of indifference that has reaped a healthy crop of Catholic light over at least three generations and counting. I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether this connects poor catechesis to the OF. I don't see it myself. I read it as merely saying that poor catechesis leaves one to see the TLM as "foreign or even distant". It doesn't say a thing about the OF.
Is there another form besides the OF?
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 16, 2023 3:08:43 GMT
There’s nothing substantially wrong with the article. The accusation of antisemitism against the remnant is absurd. Unfortunately, that kind of rhetoric results from the same “poor catechesis” the article is probably referring to. The problem could also stem from how one interprets what constitutes “proper” catechetical instruction. For example, I’ve met many Catholics who can rattle off various Catholic prayers and tell you all about the feast days and the rubrics of the Mass. Yet, they have very little understanding of Scripture or how to properly interpret it. And no, I’m not claiming this is unique only to attendants of the NO. What I’m saying is that, many Catholics believe that to be a good Catholic they have to prioritize Church rules and guidelines over anything else.
That's in reference to the site and not the article.
The problem is that some of the points are not valid, like Church criticism of Masons.
About "poor catechesis," the writer insists that people see the EF as foreign because of that. Since the only other form in the Latin Church is the OF, then the connection with the OF is clear, and the argument is that those who prefer the OF are ill-informed.
I think Pope Benedict XVI would argue the opposite:
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 16, 2023 3:22:53 GMT
For some the TLM will seem foreign or even distant. This is the result of the poisoned fruit of poor catechesis that has manifested itself to a cancer of indifference that has reaped a healthy crop of Catholic light over at least three generations and counting. I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether this connects poor catechesis to the OF. I don't see it myself. I read it as merely saying that poor catechesis leaves one to see the TLM as "foreign or even distant". It doesn't say a thing about the OF.
Is there another form besides the OF?
Again, this statement says nothing about the OF. Poor catechesis could lead someone not to be able to appreciate the OF either, or more to the point, understand what the Mass is and what happens there. When you have 70 percent of people who identify as Catholic not believing in the Real Presence, that tells me that their catechesis leaves something to be desired. And in answer to your question, yes, within the Roman Rite there are different forms or uses (some of them called "rites", though I am willing to consider that a figure of speech here), such as the Anglican Use, the Mozarabic Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, the Dominican Rite, the Carthusian Rite, maybe others, but the vast majority of Catholics have never even heard of them, so that's not at issue here.
|
|
|
Post by crusader on Dec 16, 2023 14:58:45 GMT
The splc is hardly a friend or an ally in promoting Catholic teaching. Especially, since they heavily endorse all things LGBTQ and are in favor of bringing that stuff into our schools. This "antisemitism" that is so often hurled at any Christian who thinks Jews need to accept Jesus Christ for salvation, does stem from poor catechesis. By today's standards, Jesus would be blasted for his antisemitic remarks about the old covenant. It's not antisemitic to insist that there is salvation in Jesus Christ alone. The law cannot save anyone, not even Jewish faithful when they actively teach that Jesus was not the messiah and there is no salvation in Him or his Church. That exact line of thinking is what lead to the destruction of the temple and the end of the old covenant. I guess one would have to take a poll to truly see what Catholics believe and how those beliefs compare to attendants of the TLM vs the NO. I would venture to guess that most Catholics who don't believe in the real presence and who share a similar ideology to that of James Martin, are not going to be driving out of their way to seek the TLM. There must be real differences between the two forms that go deeper than simple preference. Differences that stem from how Catholic doctrine is taught and emphasized. Especially when it comes to salvation. Yes, I've been to NO parishes, where the priest was very orthodox in his sermons and took great effort to uphold Church doctrine. I've also attended far too many masses where the priest was not at all concerned with Church doctrine, but instead focused heavily on what he believed the Church should be teaching. So yes, one can find proper catechesis in the NO parishes, but in my opinion, there's far more consistency at the TLM masses.
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Dec 16, 2023 16:25:47 GMT
Catholics who don't believe in the Real Presence probably don't bother with the OF other than at Christmas and Easter. Let alone the TLM. I've yet to meet any Catholic who regularly attends Mass who thinks the Eucharist is just a piece of bread at a community meal.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 16, 2023 17:19:34 GMT
The splc is hardly a friend or an ally in promoting Catholic teaching. Especially, since they heavily endorse all things LGBTQ and are in favor of bringing that stuff into our schools. This "antisemitism" that is so often hurled at any Christian who thinks Jews need to accept Jesus Christ for salvation, does stem from poor catechesis. By today's standards, Jesus would be blasted for his antisemitic remarks about the old covenant. It's not antisemitic to insist that there is salvation in Jesus Christ alone. The law cannot save anyone, not even Jewish faithful when they actively teach that Jesus was not the messiah and there is no salvation in Him or his Church. That exact line of thinking is what lead to the destruction of the temple and the end of the old covenant. I guess one would have to take a poll to truly see what Catholics believe and how those beliefs compare to attendants of the TLM vs the NO. I would venture to guess that most Catholics who don't believe in the real presence and who share a similar ideology to that of James Martin, are not going to be driving out of their way to seek the TLM. There must be real differences between the two forms that go deeper than simple preference. Differences that stem from how Catholic doctrine is taught and emphasized. Especially when it comes to salvation. Yes, I've been to NO parishes, where the priest was very orthodox in his sermons and took great effort to uphold Church doctrine. I've also attended far too many masses where the priest was not at all concerned with Church doctrine, but instead focused heavily on what he believed the Church should be teaching. So yes, one can find proper catechesis in the NO parishes, but in my opinion, there's far more consistency at the TLM masses. In all fairness, yes, once in a great while, The Remnant has published articles that one could see as "anti-semitic", or at least less than totally sanguine about Judaism. Rather than try to parse it all out (which would run the risk of injecting my own opinion, which is not the same as that of the authors cited), here's what the SPLC has to say: THE REMNANT/THE REMNANT PRESS
Forest Lake, Minn.
The biweekly newspaper The Remnant was started in 1967 and edited for decades by the recently deceased Walter L. Matt, who had worked for his family's conservative newspaper The Wanderer but left over a dispute about the Vatican II church reforms. The Remnant has been edited since 2002, when Matt died, by his youngest son, Michael J. Matt, and features a Who's Who of radical traditonalist writers. These include columnist Mark Alessio, American Catholic Lawyers Association head Christopher Ferrara, Robert Sungenis, and John Vennari. Although The Remnant describes itself as a loyal opposition to the Vatican, it has consistently attacked "Nostra Aetate," the Vatican proclamation seeking to reconcile with the Jews, railed against the "takeover" of the church by homosexuals, decried ecumenism, and fretted about the much-feared coming of the "New World Order." In a 2000 article in the newspaper, Vennari praised the anti-Semitic priest Denis Fahey and demanded that "Jewish rabbis … repudiate their blasphemous Talmudic errors and convert." More recently, in a February 2006 article, Vennari and Matt criticized Pope Benedict XVI for visiting a synagogue in Cologne without exhorting the Jews there to convert. Last August, Alessio used the pages of the newspaper to defend actor Mel Gibson after his drunken anti-Semitic tirade, arguing that Gibson had been victimized by "a year-long, merciless slander campaign on the part of Jewish activists (and their apostate Catholic cronies)" who objected to his recent film "The Passion of the Christ." A year earlier, Alessio had attacked Anti-Defamation League-sponsored tours of the U.S. Holocaust Museum, describing them as an effort to indoctrinate Catholic educators into the "holocaust religion." The newspaper has also carried repeated attacks on the Masons, who it sees as a primary enemy of Catholicism. The most extreme columnist at the paper, however, is Sungenis, author of a two-part, 2005 series entitled "The New World Order and the Zionist Connection." Sungenis' articles repeat almost every anti-Semitic canard, from the allegation that Jews run Hollywood to the claim that Jews were behind communism. Using materials by hard-line Holocaust denier Willis Carto, Sungenis even reminded readers that the Antichrist, when he arrives, will be a Jew.Make of all that what you will. As to Benedict not calling upon Jews to convert, ever since the Holocaust, it would take a lot of chutzpah to tell the Jews "okay, six million of your own died under the symbol of the cross, albeit a mutated one that up until then served as an innocuous secular symbol for good fortune, but still, you need to accept Christ to save your souls". The response would be both predictable and probably unprintable here. So he probably judged it not the time or the place. His having been a member of the Hitlerjugend at a time when it was simply expected of German youth wouldn't have helped matters or optics any. As to the article, taken all by itself, there is nothing whatsoever anti-semitic about it. The differences between the TLM and the Novus Ordo have had enough ink spilled about them to fill a tanker truck, so I won't go into all of that here. Suffice it to say that there's something that draws people to it, and keeps them coming back. The current Church hierarchy would have its work cut out for them, if they would take the time to try to educate all of these people, and explain to them why they should not seek out this Mass, and explain to them why they should be happy to give it up.
|
|
|
Post by crusader on Dec 16, 2023 20:47:10 GMT
In all fairness, yes, once in a great while, The Remnant has published articles that one could see as "anti-semitic", or at least less than totally sanguine about Judaism. Rather than try to parse it all out (which would run the risk of injecting my own opinion, which is not the same as that of the authors cited), here's what the SPLC has to say: THE REMNANT/THE REMNANT PRESS
Forest Lake, Minn.
The biweekly newspaper The Remnant was started in 1967 and edited for decades by the recently deceased Walter L. Matt, who had worked for his family's conservative newspaper The Wanderer but left over a dispute about the Vatican II church reforms. The Remnant has been edited since 2002, when Matt died, by his youngest son, Michael J. Matt, and features a Who's Who of radical traditonalist writers. These include columnist Mark Alessio, American Catholic Lawyers Association head Christopher Ferrara, Robert Sungenis, and John Vennari. Although The Remnant describes itself as a loyal opposition to the Vatican, it has consistently attacked "Nostra Aetate," the Vatican proclamation seeking to reconcile with the Jews, railed against the "takeover" of the church by homosexuals, decried ecumenism, and fretted about the much-feared coming of the "New World Order." In a 2000 article in the newspaper, Vennari praised the anti-Semitic priest Denis Fahey and demanded that "Jewish rabbis … repudiate their blasphemous Talmudic errors and convert." More recently, in a February 2006 article, Vennari and Matt criticized Pope Benedict XVI for visiting a synagogue in Cologne without exhorting the Jews there to convert. Last August, Alessio used the pages of the newspaper to defend actor Mel Gibson after his drunken anti-Semitic tirade, arguing that Gibson had been victimized by "a year-long, merciless slander campaign on the part of Jewish activists (and their apostate Catholic cronies)" who objected to his recent film "The Passion of the Christ." A year earlier, Alessio had attacked Anti-Defamation League-sponsored tours of the U.S. Holocaust Museum, describing them as an effort to indoctrinate Catholic educators into the "holocaust religion." The newspaper has also carried repeated attacks on the Masons, who it sees as a primary enemy of Catholicism. The most extreme columnist at the paper, however, is Sungenis, author of a two-part, 2005 series entitled "The New World Order and the Zionist Connection." Sungenis' articles repeat almost every anti-Semitic canard, from the allegation that Jews run Hollywood to the claim that Jews were behind communism. Using materials by hard-line Holocaust denier Willis Carto, Sungenis even reminded readers that the Antichrist, when he arrives, will be a Jew.Make of all that what you will. As to Benedict not calling upon Jews to convert, ever since the Holocaust, it would take a lot of chutzpah to tell the Jews "okay, six million of your own died under the symbol of the cross, albeit a mutated one that up until then served as an innocuous secular symbol for good fortune, but still, you need to accept Christ to save your souls". The response would be both predictable and probably unprintable here. So he probably judged it not the time or the place. His having been a member of the Hitlerjugend at a time when it was simply expected of German youth wouldn't have helped matters or optics any. As to the article, taken all by itself, there is nothing whatsoever anti-semitic about it. The differences between the TLM and the Novus Ordo have had enough ink spilled about them to fill a tanker truck, so I won't go into all of that here. Suffice it to say that there's something that draws people to it, and keeps them coming back. The current Church hierarchy would have its work cut out for them, if they would take the time to try to educate all of these people, and explain to them why they should not seek out this Mass, and explain to them why they should be happy to give it up. Well I do agree that there are Catholics and protestants, who have a misguided view about Judaism and it's role in eschatology and the role of the antichrist and the view that Jews are puppet masters in control of everything from Hollywood to the banking system. I think much of that stems from a dispensational view about the end times. For example, when one reads Matthew 24, they view this as a future event still waiting to happen. In order for all that to take place, a third temple must be built, Judaism needs to be a dominating religion in the middle east and everybody will be living in fear of being dragged into synagogues for beatings and interrogations. This explains why so many evangelicals keep pushing for that temple to be built, in the hopes that it will usher in the second coming and the rapture and everything else that comes with it. This is not a view that I support nor do I even think it's biblical. Ever since the holocaust there has been a push to correct the horrors and atrocities that have been done to the Jews. Unfortunately, this has bled into the theological realm and now we treat Judaism as a protected religion. Meaning, we don't convert them nor do we tell them they need Jesus. Documents like Nostra aetate are propped up as doctrine and are read back into Scripture, as if that is exactly what Jesus was saying to the Jews of His time. This is disingenuous and it only serves to undermine the role of Christ and the Church. In fact, this is such bad theology, that they needed to create more documents supporting either a two covenant system for salvation or they simply take the old covenant and extend it to Jews of the present age by saying they are grandfathered in under the old system. It's completely absurd. It reminds me of the Jehovah's Witnesses teaching on the Overlapping Generation. Documents like nostra aetate remind of the Church's teaching on limbo. The Church, back then, was trying to deal with a very sensitive issue about what happens to unbaptized infants. They found themselves trying to be pastorally sensitive to the parents who lost children that were unbaptized and yet still be faithful to the teaching that baptism was necessary for salvation. Limbo was, I believe, an attempt to bridge the gap and give comfort to those in mourning. Obviously, the teaching of limbo is not doctrine and in fact the Church no longer teaches that this belief was even biblically accurate for the time, but it was the Church's attempt to be pastoral and show understanding. It was motivated out of love and compassion. In my opinion, this is what the Church has done with Judaism. It made an attempt to be pastoral and sensitive to the Jewish people, but it is not a biblical teaching and it shouldn't be presented as such.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 17, 2023 2:24:11 GMT
In all fairness, yes, once in a great while, The Remnant has published articles that one could see as "anti-semitic", or at least less than totally sanguine about Judaism. Rather than try to parse it all out (which would run the risk of injecting my own opinion, which is not the same as that of the authors cited), here's what the SPLC has to say: THE REMNANT/THE REMNANT PRESS
Forest Lake, Minn.
The biweekly newspaper The Remnant was started in 1967 and edited for decades by the recently deceased Walter L. Matt, who had worked for his family's conservative newspaper The Wanderer but left over a dispute about the Vatican II church reforms. The Remnant has been edited since 2002, when Matt died, by his youngest son, Michael J. Matt, and features a Who's Who of radical traditonalist writers. These include columnist Mark Alessio, American Catholic Lawyers Association head Christopher Ferrara, Robert Sungenis, and John Vennari. Although The Remnant describes itself as a loyal opposition to the Vatican, it has consistently attacked "Nostra Aetate," the Vatican proclamation seeking to reconcile with the Jews, railed against the "takeover" of the church by homosexuals, decried ecumenism, and fretted about the much-feared coming of the "New World Order." In a 2000 article in the newspaper, Vennari praised the anti-Semitic priest Denis Fahey and demanded that "Jewish rabbis … repudiate their blasphemous Talmudic errors and convert." More recently, in a February 2006 article, Vennari and Matt criticized Pope Benedict XVI for visiting a synagogue in Cologne without exhorting the Jews there to convert. Last August, Alessio used the pages of the newspaper to defend actor Mel Gibson after his drunken anti-Semitic tirade, arguing that Gibson had been victimized by "a year-long, merciless slander campaign on the part of Jewish activists (and their apostate Catholic cronies)" who objected to his recent film "The Passion of the Christ." A year earlier, Alessio had attacked Anti-Defamation League-sponsored tours of the U.S. Holocaust Museum, describing them as an effort to indoctrinate Catholic educators into the "holocaust religion." The newspaper has also carried repeated attacks on the Masons, who it sees as a primary enemy of Catholicism. The most extreme columnist at the paper, however, is Sungenis, author of a two-part, 2005 series entitled "The New World Order and the Zionist Connection." Sungenis' articles repeat almost every anti-Semitic canard, from the allegation that Jews run Hollywood to the claim that Jews were behind communism. Using materials by hard-line Holocaust denier Willis Carto, Sungenis even reminded readers that the Antichrist, when he arrives, will be a Jew.Make of all that what you will. As to Benedict not calling upon Jews to convert, ever since the Holocaust, it would take a lot of chutzpah to tell the Jews "okay, six million of your own died under the symbol of the cross, albeit a mutated one that up until then served as an innocuous secular symbol for good fortune, but still, you need to accept Christ to save your souls". The response would be both predictable and probably unprintable here. So he probably judged it not the time or the place. His having been a member of the Hitlerjugend at a time when it was simply expected of German youth wouldn't have helped matters or optics any. As to the article, taken all by itself, there is nothing whatsoever anti-semitic about it. The differences between the TLM and the Novus Ordo have had enough ink spilled about them to fill a tanker truck, so I won't go into all of that here. Suffice it to say that there's something that draws people to it, and keeps them coming back. The current Church hierarchy would have its work cut out for them, if they would take the time to try to educate all of these people, and explain to them why they should not seek out this Mass, and explain to them why they should be happy to give it up. Well I do agree that there are Catholics and protestants, who have a misguided view about Judaism and it's role in eschatology and the role of the antichrist and the view that Jews are puppet masters in control of everything from Hollywood to the banking system. I think much of that stems from a dispensational view about the end times. For example, when one reads Matthew 24, they view this as a future event still waiting to happen. In order for all that to take place, a third temple must be built, Judaism needs to be a dominating religion in the middle east and everybody will be living in fear of being dragged into synagogues for beatings and interrogations. This explains why so many evangelicals keep pushing for that temple to be built, in the hopes that it will usher in the second coming and the rapture and everything else that comes with it. This is not a view that I support nor do I even think it's biblical. Ever since the holocaust there has been a push to correct the horrors and atrocities that have been done to the Jews. Unfortunately, this has bled into the theological realm and now we treat Judaism as a protected religion. Meaning, we don't convert them nor do we tell them they need Jesus. Documents like Nostra aetate are propped up as doctrine and are read back into Scripture, as if that is exactly what Jesus was saying to the Jews of His time. This is disingenuous and it only serves to undermine the role of Christ and the Church. In fact, this is such bad theology, that they needed to create more documents supporting either a two covenant system for salvation or they simply take the old covenant and extend it to Jews of the present age by saying they are grandfathered in under the old system. It's completely absurd. It reminds me of the Jehovah's Witnesses teaching on the Overlapping Generation. Documents like nostra aetate remind of the Church's teaching on limbo. The Church, back then, was trying to deal with a very sensitive issue about what happens to unbaptized infants. They found themselves trying to be pastorally sensitive to the parents who lost children that were unbaptized and yet still be faithful to the teaching that baptism was necessary for salvation. Limbo was, I believe, an attempt to bridge the gap and give comfort to those in mourning. Obviously, the teaching of limbo is not doctrine and in fact the Church no longer teaches that this belief was even biblically accurate for the time, but it was the Church's attempt to be pastoral and show understanding. It was motivated out of love and compassion. In my opinion, this is what the Church has done with Judaism. It made an attempt to be pastoral and sensitive to the Jewish people, but it is not a biblical teaching and it shouldn't be presented as such. This is as intelligent an explanation of the Church's approach to the Jews since Vatican II as I have ever seen. Thank you for this.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 17, 2023 3:29:52 GMT
Is there another form besides the OF?
Again, this statement says nothing about the OF. Poor catechesis could lead someone not to be able to appreciate the OF either, or more to the point, understand what the Mass is and what happens there. When you have 70 percent of people who identify as Catholic not believing in the Real Presence, that tells me that their catechesis leaves something to be desired. And in answer to your question, yes, within the Roman Rite there are different forms or uses (some of them called "rites", though I am willing to consider that a figure of speech here), such as the Anglican Use, the Mozarabic Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, the Dominican Rite, the Carthusian Rite, maybe others, but the vast majority of Catholics have never even heard of them, so that's not at issue here.
It can only refer to the OF because there's no other form, and I don't think the writer is referring to the EF versus anything else.
Your second point is correct, but that's not the point of the writer. If any, it goes against him because it implies that the solution is better catechism and not the EF.
Finally, those are part of the other particular Churches and not of the Latin Church. The Anglican Use was allowed because converts are not used to the OF.
Given that, the writer is obviously referring to the EF vs. the OF.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 17, 2023 3:35:53 GMT
The splc is hardly a friend or an ally in promoting Catholic teaching. Especially, since they heavily endorse all things LGBTQ and are in favor of bringing that stuff into our schools. This "antisemitism" that is so often hurled at any Christian who thinks Jews need to accept Jesus Christ for salvation, does stem from poor catechesis. By today's standards, Jesus would be blasted for his antisemitic remarks about the old covenant. It's not antisemitic to insist that there is salvation in Jesus Christ alone. The law cannot save anyone, not even Jewish faithful when they actively teach that Jesus was not the messiah and there is no salvation in Him or his Church. That exact line of thinking is what lead to the destruction of the temple and the end of the old covenant. I guess one would have to take a poll to truly see what Catholics believe and how those beliefs compare to attendants of the TLM vs the NO. I would venture to guess that most Catholics who don't believe in the real presence and who share a similar ideology to that of James Martin, are not going to be driving out of their way to seek the TLM. There must be real differences between the two forms that go deeper than simple preference. Differences that stem from how Catholic doctrine is taught and emphasized. Especially when it comes to salvation. Yes, I've been to NO parishes, where the priest was very orthodox in his sermons and took great effort to uphold Church doctrine. I've also attended far too many masses where the priest was not at all concerned with Church doctrine, but instead focused heavily on what he believed the Church should be teaching. So yes, one can find proper catechesis in the NO parishes, but in my opinion, there's far more consistency at the TLM masses.
The problem is that the outlet was doing more than just claiming that salvation is from Jesus alone.
The claim that the EF will lead to more believing in the real presence doesn't make sense if the cause of the latter is poor catechesis and not the use of the OF.
The same goes for the claim that if there's more EF Masses, then there will be more "proper catechesis." That's because the latter involves material resources, which the Church lacks, and which won't increase by simply going back to the use of the EF.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 17, 2023 3:42:24 GMT
Catholics who don't believe in the Real Presence probably don't bother with the OF other than at Christmas and Easter. Let alone the TLM. I've yet to meet any Catholic who regularly attends Mass who thinks the Eucharist is just a piece of bread at a community meal.
That's what's taking place place in most of the Catholic world, with weekly attendance in places like the Philippines down to 40 pct, with a high of 60 pct back in the late 1990s. Many attend only during Christmas and Easter, and the main reason why Churches are packed during the weekends isn't because of high attendance but lack of Churches and priests.
The cause isn't the use of the OF but poor catechesis, and that in turn connected to many other issues involving the rise of secularism coupled with lack of funding, e.g., 8,000 Catholics per priest in the Philippines vs. a 3,000-global average, lack of Missals (not even Misalettes), pews, Bibles, Churches, etc., not to mention food and shelter. And yet the faithful soldier on with lay volunteers and Basic Christian Communities, and numbers rising in places like Africa.
The only ones concerned with the EF vs. the OF are the few in richer Catholic communities.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 17, 2023 3:49:23 GMT
In all fairness, yes, once in a great while, The Remnant has published articles that one could see as "anti-semitic", or at least less than totally sanguine about Judaism. Rather than try to parse it all out (which would run the risk of injecting my own opinion, which is not the same as that of the authors cited), here's what the SPLC has to say: THE REMNANT/THE REMNANT PRESS
Forest Lake, Minn.
The biweekly newspaper The Remnant was started in 1967 and edited for decades by the recently deceased Walter L. Matt, who had worked for his family's conservative newspaper The Wanderer but left over a dispute about the Vatican II church reforms. The Remnant has been edited since 2002, when Matt died, by his youngest son, Michael J. Matt, and features a Who's Who of radical traditonalist writers. These include columnist Mark Alessio, American Catholic Lawyers Association head Christopher Ferrara, Robert Sungenis, and John Vennari. Although The Remnant describes itself as a loyal opposition to the Vatican, it has consistently attacked "Nostra Aetate," the Vatican proclamation seeking to reconcile with the Jews, railed against the "takeover" of the church by homosexuals, decried ecumenism, and fretted about the much-feared coming of the "New World Order." In a 2000 article in the newspaper, Vennari praised the anti-Semitic priest Denis Fahey and demanded that "Jewish rabbis … repudiate their blasphemous Talmudic errors and convert." More recently, in a February 2006 article, Vennari and Matt criticized Pope Benedict XVI for visiting a synagogue in Cologne without exhorting the Jews there to convert. Last August, Alessio used the pages of the newspaper to defend actor Mel Gibson after his drunken anti-Semitic tirade, arguing that Gibson had been victimized by "a year-long, merciless slander campaign on the part of Jewish activists (and their apostate Catholic cronies)" who objected to his recent film "The Passion of the Christ." A year earlier, Alessio had attacked Anti-Defamation League-sponsored tours of the U.S. Holocaust Museum, describing them as an effort to indoctrinate Catholic educators into the "holocaust religion." The newspaper has also carried repeated attacks on the Masons, who it sees as a primary enemy of Catholicism. The most extreme columnist at the paper, however, is Sungenis, author of a two-part, 2005 series entitled "The New World Order and the Zionist Connection." Sungenis' articles repeat almost every anti-Semitic canard, from the allegation that Jews run Hollywood to the claim that Jews were behind communism. Using materials by hard-line Holocaust denier Willis Carto, Sungenis even reminded readers that the Antichrist, when he arrives, will be a Jew.Make of all that what you will. As to Benedict not calling upon Jews to convert, ever since the Holocaust, it would take a lot of chutzpah to tell the Jews "okay, six million of your own died under the symbol of the cross, albeit a mutated one that up until then served as an innocuous secular symbol for good fortune, but still, you need to accept Christ to save your souls". The response would be both predictable and probably unprintable here. So he probably judged it not the time or the place. His having been a member of the Hitlerjugend at a time when it was simply expected of German youth wouldn't have helped matters or optics any. As to the article, taken all by itself, there is nothing whatsoever anti-semitic about it. The differences between the TLM and the Novus Ordo have had enough ink spilled about them to fill a tanker truck, so I won't go into all of that here. Suffice it to say that there's something that draws people to it, and keeps them coming back. The current Church hierarchy would have its work cut out for them, if they would take the time to try to educate all of these people, and explain to them why they should not seek out this Mass, and explain to them why they should be happy to give it up. Well I do agree that there are Catholics and protestants, who have a misguided view about Judaism and it's role in eschatology and the role of the antichrist and the view that Jews are puppet masters in control of everything from Hollywood to the banking system. I think much of that stems from a dispensational view about the end times. For example, when one reads Matthew 24, they view this as a future event still waiting to happen. In order for all that to take place, a third temple must be built, Judaism needs to be a dominating religion in the middle east and everybody will be living in fear of being dragged into synagogues for beatings and interrogations. This explains why so many evangelicals keep pushing for that temple to be built, in the hopes that it will usher in the second coming and the rapture and everything else that comes with it. This is not a view that I support nor do I even think it's biblical. Ever since the holocaust there has been a push to correct the horrors and atrocities that have been done to the Jews. Unfortunately, this has bled into the theological realm and now we treat Judaism as a protected religion. Meaning, we don't convert them nor do we tell them they need Jesus. Documents like Nostra aetate are propped up as doctrine and are read back into Scripture, as if that is exactly what Jesus was saying to the Jews of His time. This is disingenuous and it only serves to undermine the role of Christ and the Church. In fact, this is such bad theology, that they needed to create more documents supporting either a two covenant system for salvation or they simply take the old covenant and extend it to Jews of the present age by saying they are grandfathered in under the old system. It's completely absurd. It reminds me of the Jehovah's Witnesses teaching on the Overlapping Generation. Documents like nostra aetate remind of the Church's teaching on limbo. The Church, back then, was trying to deal with a very sensitive issue about what happens to unbaptized infants. They found themselves trying to be pastorally sensitive to the parents who lost children that were unbaptized and yet still be faithful to the teaching that baptism was necessary for salvation. Limbo was, I believe, an attempt to bridge the gap and give comfort to those in mourning. Obviously, the teaching of limbo is not doctrine and in fact the Church no longer teaches that this belief was even biblically accurate for the time, but it was the Church's attempt to be pastoral and show understanding. It was motivated out of love and compassion. In my opinion, this is what the Church has done with Judaism. It made an attempt to be pastoral and sensitive to the Jewish people, but it is not a biblical teaching and it shouldn't be presented as such.
The Church is a theocracy facing a modern world. The former realized that during the nineteenth century and acted on it only a century later through Vatican II, but many of the principles embodied in the latter can be seen across the centuries. For example, missionaries came up with vernacular translations of the Mass across centuries and with permission of the Church in order to evangelize. This was followed by translations of the Mass and calls for active participation. Later, they found various ancient manuscripts revealing similar about the early Church.
In response to that, a few want to go back to the old ways, i.e., a Church driven by the Crusades, older versions of the Catechism, the Bible in Latin or even in archaic English or vernacular languages, and all to create an atmosphere of reverence, meditation, sacredness, and so on. And yet historians reveal that the old ways were not as romantic as the few thought, as it was rife with politicking and worse, leading to the Reformation, Counter-Reformation, the Cross working with the Sword, and more.
Finally, what's also ironic is that the desire to go back to the old ways, with the implication of not wanting to face the modern world (i.e., people should do as they wish: if they want to celebrate using the EF, let them) is itself both an ancient concept (as seen in diversity in the Early Church) and a modern one (part of individualism and democratic ideals).
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Dec 17, 2023 3:51:12 GMT
Again, this statement says nothing about the OF. Poor catechesis could lead someone not to be able to appreciate the OF either, or more to the point, understand what the Mass is and what happens there. When you have 70 percent of people who identify as Catholic not believing in the Real Presence, that tells me that their catechesis leaves something to be desired. And in answer to your question, yes, within the Roman Rite there are different forms or uses (some of them called "rites", though I am willing to consider that a figure of speech here), such as the Anglican Use, the Mozarabic Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, the Dominican Rite, the Carthusian Rite, maybe others, but the vast majority of Catholics have never even heard of them, so that's not at issue here.
It can only refer to the OF because there's no other form, and I don't think the writer is referring to the EF versus anything else.
Your second point is correct, but that's not the point of the writer. If any, it goes against him because it implies that the solution is better catechism and not the EF.
Finally, those are part of the other particular Churches and not of the Latin Church. The Anglican Use was allowed because converts are not used to the OF.
Given that, the writer is obviously referring to the EF vs. the OF.
Read it as you see fit. I get a different meaning from it. As to the "other particular Churches", I didn't realize there were any "particular Churches" in the West besides the Latin Church. I'm pretty sure these "rites" are indeed part of that same Latin Church (sometimes called "Roman Rite"). They are usages proper to a particular religious entity (such as an order) or confined to a relatively small area. The ex-Anglicans were allowed to use a slightly modified version of their rite, instead of the OF, because there was no reason not to, as well as to allow them to remain as much what they had always been, as was possible. It could be viewed as a kind of extension of the proverbial olive branch. So far as I'm aware, there is no "sundown clause" allowing them to keep this use only until they are able to make their way over to the OF. It's really a separate rite without calling it that, not unlike the Maronites who are "Eastern-Rite-but-not-Eastern-Rite", viz. for all practical purposes the Lebanese national Catholic Church.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Dec 17, 2023 4:19:59 GMT
Well I do agree that there are Catholics and protestants, who have a misguided view about Judaism and it's role in eschatology and the role of the antichrist and the view that Jews are puppet masters in control of everything from Hollywood to the banking system. I think much of that stems from a dispensational view about the end times. For example, when one reads Matthew 24, they view this as a future event still waiting to happen. In order for all that to take place, a third temple must be built, Judaism needs to be a dominating religion in the middle east and everybody will be living in fear of being dragged into synagogues for beatings and interrogations. This explains why so many evangelicals keep pushing for that temple to be built, in the hopes that it will usher in the second coming and the rapture and everything else that comes with it. This is not a view that I support nor do I even think it's biblical. Ever since the holocaust there has been a push to correct the horrors and atrocities that have been done to the Jews. Unfortunately, this has bled into the theological realm and now we treat Judaism as a protected religion. Meaning, we don't convert them nor do we tell them they need Jesus. Documents like Nostra aetate are propped up as doctrine and are read back into Scripture, as if that is exactly what Jesus was saying to the Jews of His time. This is disingenuous and it only serves to undermine the role of Christ and the Church. In fact, this is such bad theology, that they needed to create more documents supporting either a two covenant system for salvation or they simply take the old covenant and extend it to Jews of the present age by saying they are grandfathered in under the old system. It's completely absurd. It reminds me of the Jehovah's Witnesses teaching on the Overlapping Generation. Documents like nostra aetate remind of the Church's teaching on limbo. The Church, back then, was trying to deal with a very sensitive issue about what happens to unbaptized infants. They found themselves trying to be pastorally sensitive to the parents who lost children that were unbaptized and yet still be faithful to the teaching that baptism was necessary for salvation. Limbo was, I believe, an attempt to bridge the gap and give comfort to those in mourning. Obviously, the teaching of limbo is not doctrine and in fact the Church no longer teaches that this belief was even biblically accurate for the time, but it was the Church's attempt to be pastoral and show understanding. It was motivated out of love and compassion. In my opinion, this is what the Church has done with Judaism. It made an attempt to be pastoral and sensitive to the Jewish people, but it is not a biblical teaching and it shouldn't be presented as such. This is as intelligent an explanation of the Church's approach to the Jews since Vatican II as I have ever seen. Thank you for this.
I forgot to add that my understanding is that the Chuch does not operate on solely Biblical teaching but Scriptures and the Magisterium. The idea that a teaching has to be only Biblical is a Protestant view.
|
|